User talk:24dot

I'll welcome myself since, if I don't, someone else will come along and put tons of baloney at the beginning of this page. --24dot (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop it. There was already a disamg. page, no need for two.Abce2|This isnot a test 14:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments have been addressed in the proper thread at User_talk:Ckatz#SG1. You may need to look here since Ckatz has a tendency to delete unfavorable comments from her own Talk page.

• Ckatz deletes comment, 'Ckatz has a long history of disruptive deletions'
• Ckatz deletes comment, 'Ckatz is really a very bad administrator with very vindictive attitude'
• Ckatz deletes comment, 'Ckatz should stop claiming imaginary "vandalism"'

--24dot (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete those as well. They were nothing more than attacks.Abce2|This isnot a test 21:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted comments were not profane or ad hominem attacks. While User:Abce2 may be in agreement with User:Ckatz on the matter, I believe that few other experienced Wikipedians would have felt the need to delete such comments from their Talk pages. I believe Ckatz's deletions indicate a pattern of suppressing unflattering comment that Ckatz has continued as recently as yesterday and even a few minutes ago. --24dot (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So according to you, it was wrong of me to:

• delete abusive comments from a known spammer and sockpuppeteer; and
• advise you to post your "unflattering comments" about me on the main AN/I page (where they'll be read) rather than in an archive (where they won't)

How does that make sense? --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd object to being called a "known spammer and sockpuppeteer", but you've demonstrated that you dismiss the valid objections of others. Casual browsers who've come upon this thread should be assured that 24dot is neither a spammer nor sockpuppeteer, and has been called many other names by Ckatz. I may accept Ckatz' invitation to open a new ANI regarding her soon. For now, I'd like to pursue some productive edits... --24dot (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are mentioning yourself in third person?Abce2|This isnot a test 01:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comment at ANI has been removed, only because it was posted to the archived discussion page. Editors are asked not to add material to archive pages, but instead to post to the main ANI page. If you need assistance with this, I can certainly help. For your reference, the edit in question is available here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand criticism is unpleasant, Ckatz, but that shouldn't affect the way a conscientious editor (or "admin") chooses to enforce Wikipedia policies and practices. I've reinstated your surprisingly selective deletion. --24dot (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what part of my post above you are unable to comprehend. I'll spell it out for you:

• I informed you that editors are asked to not add material to talk page archives
• I explained that follow-up posts should be added to the main ANI page
• I offered to help if you needed assistance
• I provided a link to the post for your reference

Not really sure how this is "selective deletion", given that you're the only person today who erroneously posted to the archive talk page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion was "selective" because you didn't delete the other non-archived part of the same thread (by Peter Napkin Party Dance), which my edit actually SURROUNDED. One might infer that your edit was intended only to edit out my specific comment. Surely you'll acknowledge that your history shows a tendency to delete Talk comments which mention your failings (see [1][2][3]).

Regardless, the thread was not moved because it was closed, it was moved because it was "really long" for the main page. It's entirely appropriate to continue such a thread with a new section below that which has been "archived". I regret that this sounds snarky, but I'd have thought a conscientious "admin" would have known that. --24dot (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, you don't edit archived pages. Abce2|This isnot a test 22:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astute Wikipedians will notice that I did not edit archived material. --24dot (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. Would you like a link to it?Abce2|This isnot a test 12:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have a number of complaints regarding Ckatz, and you may think that by repeating them you will eventually make some point. However, the regulars here are extremely used to the fact that administrators who actively combat misguided editors or spammers or vandals or POV pushers are frequently the target of complaints. It goes with the job: if an administrator actively cleans Wikipedia, they will upset a bunch of people, and some of those people will push back. I am posting this comment not so much for you but for others who may review the history of your talk page because I have reviewed several of your complaints and found them to be the result of misunderstanding how things work on Wikipedia. In particular, simple repetition of opinions without any evidence is totally ignored by all experienced Wikipedians (for example, this edit has zero content). It is also totally mistaken to edit an archive just to add another complaint, and you should be aware (see WP:TALK) that users are fully permitted to remove any comment from their talk page with no explanation. Complaining that your complaints have been removed from a user's talk page simply alerts Wikipedians that your original complaints are probably baseless as well (which they are). Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I thought it would be amusing to delete this comment from my Talk, seeing as how it's "fully permitted" to do so. I don't recall saying that it broke a rule, just that it seemed wrong. I still think it seems wrong, and I have no plans to follow the examples of persons who undo the work of others. --24dot (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong in being bold, but if you are reverted then please follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle Here is a link for you to have a read, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I created the section with an introductory paragraph then went to work elsewhere on populating it. When I had written the body, I again clicked "Edit" and just pasted it in without checking the history or anything. My mind didn't even register that my intro paragraph was gone since it was also part of what was pasted. I'm happy to wait for Talk consensus, but I don't anticipate substantive objections to a neutral discussion of the matter. See also Talk:Alan Grayson\Controversial statements. --24dot (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thank you for opening a discussion on the talk, I don't support your proposed edit as lists of controversial comments is a poor way to populate a encyclopaedic biography, but lets see what comments are left. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given your sources, I now would vote to include the teleprompter discussion. Let's see if we can get some consensus on the talk page.--Louiedog (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes back again, start a complaint at WP:ANI. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 24dot; just read your section that mentioned the "Death Panel" article. WOW. One of the worst WP articles I have ever seen, and has all the untenable problems we are trying to avoid in War on Women. The Death Panel article editors (PS the factual inaccuracies are too numerous to mention, for instance, the term was used back in the 90's in the Clinton Health care debate, and meaning the exact same thing. Ron Paul and other Libertarians have used it for years, meaning the same thing. Palin may repeat it more than anyone else, but she didn't come up with it) seem to, ON BOTH SIDES, treat it as if the meme is true or not, that the MEME is the issue (not the issue being the issue), rather that treating it as a meme or slogan to reframe the issue. The issue of restriction of health care to constrain costs, particularly end of life care is a real one, and worthy of a real discussion. You can't have that on an article entitled "Death Panel", as the article amply demonstrates. You CAN have an essay on the effect of the meme on the debate, as long as there is some NPOV description of the underlying issue or events where used. Thanks. I guess.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Seb az86556. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Save your sarcasm for elsewhere Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We also welcome the majestic plural (but not smug condescension). Soooooo, here is my so-called "attack" (verbatim)[4]:

At Talk:Elizabeth Warren, you made the personal comment to me, "And don't refer to me in the 3rd person". Per WP:SORRY, I'm sorry that I referred to you in the third person.

I'll try to remember that 'User:Seb az86556 (Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556) wishes only to be referred to in the second person'. Oh, shoot, I think I messed that up, that's third person again, right? Please just point me toward the Wikipedia guideline that covers the matter and then I'll bookmark it for when we next interact. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment bears absolutely no resemblance to what is described at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. In fact, buddy, per WP:AVOIDYOU, that guideline specifically states: "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Incivility.)". See also WP:POT, WP:POTKETTLE, and WP:KETTLE. Also in that vein, while removal of comments from User Talk is allowed, users are not allowed to label a comment as "vandalism" when it plainly is not. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Elizabeth Warren (Talk page comments) continuing the discussion from the Elizabeth warren talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite any threat I have made.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPANPA per this, I guess. --→gab 24dot grab← 18:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my post again. I said I was concerned. Then I said I might be oversensitive. I said I was interested in an uninvolved opinion. Not only did I not request sanctions, but I clearly posted that I may very well be the one that's wrong. The day when asking a neutral party "hey, do you think I'm right or not" is considered a threat is a sad sad day indeed.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the bait. --→gab 24dot grab← 18:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the use of that link, however the change you made on the BLPN thread resolves my concern. For that I thank you.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLW --→gab 24dot grab← 18:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you just schooled me on posting atop talk pages, I figure I just HAVE to put "tons of baloney" at the beginning of your page.... :P 66.105.218.38 (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your pointers at the Warren page have been most helpful. As opposed to the one or two there who routinely delete EVERYTHING I post! (to wit, 3 attempts at the "scientific misconduct" accusations...until someone ELSE finally posted the EXACT SAME THING and it stuck just fine!)

I understand that being unregistered is half the problem. Altho...to some degree there's a principle of wanting to know that a post sticks b/c of CONTENT, not my ID. I'd hate to think people give me me a pass AFTER seeing who's posting.

Regards, 66.105.218.18 (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Carmel Bay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Cruz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must be hungry after all this hard work you've been doing. Have a filet--and watch out for the tartar--it gets everywhere!– Lionel ^(talk) 01:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "War on Women". Thank you. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Carmel Bay at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DYKHousekeepingBot, I've now done as you suggest. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Carmel Bay at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carmel Bay, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carmel Bay. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 16:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kevin Madden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Speaker of the House of Representatives, The Hill, Cockeyed, 2008 primary and Advisor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you didn't add one of the checkmark templates to note that the DYK submission is approved. Closing editors look for those, so can you please add one so that it can either be promoted into a prep area or the special holding area? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kevin Madden, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 2012 U.S. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign spokesman Kevin Madden was listed second of the "50 Most Beautiful" in Washington, D.C. in 2006, according to The Hill newspaper? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin Madden. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kevin Madden at CSPAN event on 2009-05-14.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raymond Kelly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treasury Department (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jane Fonda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gun laws in North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durham county (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has edited the article Asian American this year, I am seeking your input on a proposed change to remove a reference to epicanthic eyefolds. This topic has prompted discussion in 2009, 2010 and most recently in 2013.

There's a fine line between being WP:BOLD and subverting WP:CONSENSUS. Given the history of this topic, I'm hoping that a robust discussion, for the record, would improve the article whether this reference stays or goes. Ishu (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]